[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.

[薔薇語]

My take is that this should have been expected. When you have cops gunning down unarmed civilians on the flimsiest of pretexts, with total impunity, then when a situation arises where lethal force is actually justified it's still going to set off the population.

 

As it is, my first reaction when I read the story was "Did the guy really have a gun? Really? Now I'm expecting the security camera footage that shows the cop planting a gun on the unarmed perp.

 

My second reaction was, of course the guy drew on the cop if he thought he was going to get shot anyway.

 

 

This, completely this!

 

The cops have squandered the public trust so when they do things it is only natural for the public who is being robbed, molested, and killed by the hands of the cops to not trust them when they gun down someone. My first thought when I heard this story was "Did he really have a drawn on them or was he shot for giving a cop a bad look and thank heavens there was a gun somewhere near him the police could pin to him." Indeed, I still think the cops are probably lying about the incident but I most certainly do not have anything to back that up with at the moment other than their terrible history of lying about killing people without just cause, of course. 

 

La Rose. 

[薔薇語]

Armed, violent felons should think they're going to get shot. The way to avoid this line of thinking is to not be a violent felon.

 

I disagree. Armed and violent felons should think they are going to be apprehended with all necessary force. Too often people think in this white and black dynamic where gunning down a guy is the only solution. It isn't and it should never be the standard mode of thinking. People have rights - violent and armed suspects have rights, too. 

 

And as has been mentioned before, police don't seem to discriminate very well between "this violent and armed felon might kill me right now" and "this guy on the street gave me a bad look". 

 

La Rose. 

[薔薇語]

It's a fundamentally unfair process, IMO.

 

First, welcome back to the boards. It has been an extremely long time. 

 

Next up, though, I disagree. The Grand Jury process does not exist for the purposes of ascertaining guilt. Its principle purpose is to prevent over zealous or vindictive prosecutors from using their office to go after CLEARLY innocent people. If the prosecutor can not present a case without challenge strong enough to throw suspicion on the accused, then there should be no trial. That is the fundamental check that is built into our system with the use of the Grand Jury. That is why the Grand Jury decision has no far reaching consequences other than establishing or voiding the need for a trail. 

 

Now, as I understand it (I am not a lawyer, I just play one on TV), the types of evidence that is permissible in a Grand Jury inquiry is different in most states from the kind of evidence that is permissible in an actual trial. That is to say the burdens on the state are lowered. For example, polygraphs and hearsay are allowed, to my knowledge. This seems a bit too laxed in my opinion. So, I could agree with you in so far as saying that the standard for evidence in a Grand Jury and in an actual Trial ought to be largely if not completely the same. But I still think the Grand Jury processes should be a one-sided monologue for why the state has sufficient reason to go to a trial, that there must be a worthy level of culpability by the defendant. If they can't then the defendant must be clearly innocent - not innocent by technicality but clearly innocent such that a reasonable person couldn't actually assume any guilt. 

 

La Rose. 

[薔薇語]

So, how classy are our cops? Classy enough to sing a joyful song about the killing of Micheal Brown at a retirement party. 

 

Vice news article about it. 

 

Heads need to roll like a d100 die for that. 

 

La Rose. 

[Pattern Ghost]

I disagree. Armed and violent felons should think they are going to be apprehended with all necessary force. Too often people think in this white and black dynamic where gunning down a guy is the only solution. It isn't and it should never be the standard mode of thinking. People have rights - violent and armed suspects have rights, too. 

 

And as has been mentioned before, police don't seem to discriminate very well between "this violent and armed felon might kill me right now" and "this guy on the street gave me a bad look". 

 

La Rose. 

 

I think it's better for armed robbers to have a little fear. And I didn't say it needs to be of the police. I have absolutely no sympathy for violent felons, nor do I think they should ever feel safe in plying their trade.

[薔薇語]

I think it's better for armed robbers to have a little fear. And I didn't say it needs to be of the police. I have absolutely no sympathy for violent felons, nor do I think they should ever feel safe in plying their trade.

 

 

But I think the problem we have here then is that what is that fear suppose to accomplish? Fear of possible consequences doesn't actually prevent serious crime - no, a belief that one will be apprehended does. But if you temper that apprehension with a butt load of fear of being shot down, felons will feel like they have every reason to shoot for the moon since they are going to die before getting to the police station anyway. That was one of the basic reasons we stopped having the death penalty for child rape cases - it only encouraged the rapist to kill the victims since he got the same punishment regardless but a dead child can't speak out against you in court and thus reduces your risk. 

 

People should feel safe around cops. People should know that cops DE-escalate situations and that when a cop draws their weapon it is an absolutely last line resort. Criminals should feel terrified in the knowledge that they will be CAUGHT not that they will be EXECUTED by the arresting cops. 

 

La Rose. 

[Pattern Ghost]

But I think the problem we have here then is that what is that fear suppose to accomplish? Fear of possible consequences doesn't actually prevent serious crime - no, a belief that one will be apprehended does. But if you tamper that apprehension with a but load of fear of being shot down, felons will feel like they have every reason to shoot for the moon since they are going to die before getting to the police station anyway. That was one of the basic reasons we stopped having the death penalty for child rape cases - it only encouraged the rapist to kill the victims since he got the same punishment regardless but a dead child can't speak out against you in court and thus reduces your risk. 

 

People should feel safe around cops. People should know that cops DE-escalate situations and that when a cop draws their weapon it is an absolutely last line resort. Criminals should feel terrified in the knowledge that they will be CAUGHT not that they will be EXECUTED by the arresting cops. 

 

La Rose. 

 

Forgive me, I really was talking in very general terms, so my comment may be considered off topic.

[Marcus Impudite]

Cop ant was definitely scared s_tless though, so there's that.

Considering how many Cop (piss)ants claim they were "in fear for their lives" from a chihuahua or a person in a wheelchair, that's not saying much.

[薔薇語]

Forgive me, I really was talking in very general terms, so my comment may be considered off topic.

 

Then please forgive me if my response wasn't actually tackling what you were commenting on. 

 

La Rose. 

[Agent X]

Some of you are starting to sound like Robespierre and we all know how that turned out. As for grand juries - I invite you to do some reading and find out how easy it is to be charged with perjury or contempt, etc.

[薔薇語]

Agent X, do you mind expanding on what you mean. Perhaps it is just me, but I think that while it may seem like what you want to say has been well enunciated I feel as though your point is quite murky at best. This isn't an argument one way or the other on what you had to say just an admission that I don't know what it is you are trying to say. 

 

As to how easy it is to get a Grand Jury ruling, I agree. But I don't think that is a bad thing on whole. Again, Grand Juries only exist to ensure that prosecutors aren't wildly over stepping their bounds. Actual Trials are where citizens determine guilt and can judge the true value of the state's case. But a Grand Jury only exist to agree or disagree with a basic statement: The person who has has been accused is clearly innocent and no reasonable person could contemplate any culpability on the accused's part. 

 

La Rose. 

 

Edit - As a follow up to the Perjury issue - The prosecutor in the Ferguson case willfully allowed sworn in testimony of a woman he knew not to be on the scene, whose statements were not made until after the police published theirs, to stand. He allowed a woman he knew to be committing perjury to testify against his case. And now he says he will NOT seek any kind of action again her despite his absolute knowledge that she committed perjury. And the Missouri Bar has made no comments about punishing him despite his willful disobedience to the law he is sworn to uphold. To H*** with all of them. I can't believe my state, my home has devolved so badly. 

 

[Marcus Impudite]

So, how classy are our cops, classy enough to sing a joyful song about the killing of Micheal Brown at a retirement party. 

 

Vice news article about it. 

 

Heads need to roll like a d100 die for that. 

 

La Rose. 

Why am I not surprised that these were LAPD officers?

[薔薇語]

Why am I not surprised that these were LAPD officers?

 

Probably because the LAPD has hearts blacker than the guns they use to murder people? Just a guess, though. 

 

La Rose. 

[Badger]

Yes, but a grand jury doesn't fine the defendant or send him to jail.  It just permits a trial to go forward, and real trials are not rigged too much against defendants. As such, I have no trouble letting the indictment process be a little aggressive.

 

The drawback to that is with court costs on both sides.  Waste taxpayer money, and as for the defendant, you may not have guilty verdict, but at least you got the consolation of ruining his finances (and if they or a beloved family member is older and not good at handling stress, you just may hit the sadist jackpot). Which may or may not be a motive for some prosecutors.  But,  it isnt out of the realm of possibility.  Just be nice, if you at least had a decent case before you go to grand jury, if they'll waive anything.

[薔薇語]

I have a hard time believing that the Grand Jury indictment process is that big of a financial burden on the defendant given that they don't actually do anything during the process other than show up. They are not expected to give testimony or provide a defense so they have no need to secure a lawyer who go through the whole process of procuring witnesses, discover, and such. And given that truly financially needy individuals can have a public defender, I don't see it as that terrible. Perhaps there is a case to be made for it being a ruinous burden but I would have to see strong evidence of that and that it is a consistent problem in the system before we go about changing it.

 

La Rose.

[Agent X]

It's not hard to google up details about grand juries. If you like them so be it. I don't. While I am very unhappy with the state of police work in this country (and the legal system overall) I am not going to assume every time a police officer shoots someone they "planted" the gun on them.

[Badger]

Badger, I think you missed my counter. Our interactions with the police aren't like our interactions with our boss after we make a mistake. Completely innocent and law abiding citizens are being messed with, too. Just like that girl from Texas upthread. Luckily she was FWW: Filming While White, otherwise her choke old may have been a bullet hole.

 

When even innocent and law abiding people are denied their basic rights because cops are too incompetent or foul to respect them, then we have no right. And post facto justice is rare and not enough.

 

La Rose.

 

But, the thing is for every cop-initiated act of violence that happens, there is 10, 15, 20 (more?) cases where the citizen initiated.  Just that the former gets 45 minutes every hour on cable news for a month, while the latter gets mentioned on page 5-A of the local newspaper (and maybe a second time with the conviction at trial). Unless the cop dies/seriously injured, of course.

 

If you off and suckerpunch a cop acting as security at the high school basketball game, you're going to jail (happened locally last week)

[Roter Baron]

Regarding the Michael Brown-Leroy Brown-parody-song:

In a time where going to the toilet in the privacy of your own home has a good chance of being recorded by

a) your spouse,

your guest(s) or failing that

c) yourself

one can only admire the total braindeadness of the pensioned officer to sing something like that at an occasion like that in the times as they are without thining that the P U B L I C will react to it in a most unfavourable way.

 

Or a lot if not most of the cops in L.A. really feel that way and don't think of it any more than telling dirty jokes at a stagg party.

That would indeed tell you something about the sorry state US law-enforcement is in.

 

If it makes you feel any better: The murders of immigrants and the robbing of banks by a trio of national-socialist terrorsist over the last decade in Germany was protected and sponsored by the German secret service of the interior (Verfassungsschutz) and the police was either hindered in their investigations or were eager to follow any lead but the obvious - that the perps were committing hate crimes, They shamed the victims/ family of the victims instaed by assuming that the killings had to do with illegal gambling or drug-dealing/ -smuggling.

 

Hope it gives you some perspective about class rule in other countries.

 

P.S.: Being a state employee myself (like police-officers) I still do not think that all or most of them (here in Germany that is) are out to "get me". They are trying their best to do their job, to uphold law and order.

[sinanju]

First, welcome back to the boards. It has been an extremely long time. 

 

Next up, though, I disagree. The Grand Jury process does not exist for the purposes of ascertaining guilt. Its principle purpose is to prevent over zealous or vindictive prosecutors from using their office to go after CLEARLY innocent people. If the prosecutor can not present a case without challenge strong enough to throw suspicion on the accused, then there should be no trial. That is the fundamental check that is built into our system with the use of the Grand Jury. That is why the Grand Jury decision has no far reaching consequences other than establishing or voiding the need for a trail. 

 

Now, as I understand it (I am not a lawyer, I just play one on TV), the types of evidence that is permissible in a Grand Jury inquiry is different in most states from the kind of evidence that is permissible in an actual trial. That is to say the burdens on the state are lowered. For example, polygraphs and hearsay are allowed, to my knowledge. This seems a bit too laxed in my opinion. So, I could agree with you in so far as saying that the standard for evidence in a Grand Jury and in an actual Trial ought to be largely if not completely the same. But I still think the Grand Jury processes should be a one-sided monologue for why the state has sufficient reason to go to a trial, that there must be a worthy level of culpability by the defendant. If they can't then the defendant must be clearly innocent - not innocent by technicality but clearly innocent such that a reasonable person couldn't actually assume any guilt. 

 

La Rose. 

 

I've served on a Grand Jury. Once, for an an afternoon. It was for a small county in rural Virginia when I was about 20, so a long time ago. In theory we were on call for a month, but in practice, we spent one day at it during our term of service. We the jurors sat in a room in the courthouse and prosecutors and cops would enter, tell us who the defendant was, what crime he/she was being charged with, and what evidence they had to support the charge. They did not present any exculpatory evidence, only the evidence for the prosecution. Our job was to decide whether they had enough evidence of the defendant's guilt to warrant a trial.

 

They say that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In my experience, that's true. We okayed every case brought to us (everything from passing bad checks to one murder). And why not? They had a convincing case for guilt (at least in the absence of any defense); presumably, if they didn't think they had enough evidence to convince us, they'd have waited to find more and presented it to another grand jury later on. If they had fabricated evidence or the cops perjured themselves, would we have known? No--but that's why all we can do is okay a trial. The defense would be able to make those arguments in the actual trial later on.

 

This is why I have no doubt that the presecutor in the Ferguson case deliberately sabotaged his own case against Officer Wilson. He didn't want to prosecute but wasn't man enough to make that decision himself and stand by it in the face of public anger, so he used the grand jury process to engineer the same result while retaining barely-plausible deniability.

[Agent X]

I don't think that's fair to the Prosecutor, that "wasn't man enough" bit. It appears, from his statements, that he was attempting to use the Grand Jury to communicate to the public that the evidence was properly considered. I think his view was that he was trying to minimize suspicion about why the officer wasn't going to be tried. Anyone who has read the physical evidence and the conflicting witness testimony knows that wasn't a winnable case for the prosecution. By the time the Grand Jury made its decision, propagandistic thinking had set into the camps. Everything would be interpreted in the worst light for the other side and the best for the same side.

[Markdoc]

But isn't that an argument for going to trial? In a trial, the evidence would have been given a thorough airing. You could argue that not only would it have given closure to the victims family, but would also have protected the officer in question. As it stands, he didn't go to trial - but he also had to quit his job amd apparently leave the area.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I have to wonder how valid this comparison is, though. There are a lot of factors in play here, so simple statistics don't really paint a good picture.

 

I do agree with the rest of your post. There's a huge problem in this country, and we need to make a greater effort to get it sorted out.

This not about statistics, though. In Utah, with a population of about half that of Denmark, the cops shoot and kill 9-10 civilians a year. In Denmark, twice as many people, the cops shoot and kill about 0-1 people per year. No matter how you slice it, those two things are fundamentally different. And Utah is not even one of the worst states. Now sure - different rules, different cultures. For a start, criminals here rarely have guns, which fundamentally changes the situation. But still, you are looking at a real difference, and one of huge magnitude. It cannot be explained as different methods of assessing data, or similar. Dead is dead. So it's a real difference. The question is, what can or should be done about it?

 

And that depends on you guys. I can guarantee, that here, if we had 18-25 police killings a year (a level equivalent to US states), the police commissioners responsible and the minister of justice would all be looking for new jobs, if not facing charges - unless there were some truly extraordinary extenuating circumstances

 

Cheers, Mark

[Enforcer84]

Sometimes, I think many of my countrymen believe themselves to be living in an action film.

[Agent X]

But isn't that an argument for going to trial? In a trial, the evidence would have been given a thorough airing. You could argue that not only would it have given closure to the victims family, but would also have protected the officer in question. As it stands, he didn't go to trial - but he also had to quit his job amd apparently leave the area.

 

Cheers, Mark

I think that's twisted logic. If I'm a prosecutor and I know that the evidence does not support a trial but people are rioting because they think they know better, I don't go ahead and have the trial. I believe what the prosecutor attempted is called a "compromise". Bring all the evidence out in a Grand Jury hearing and let the chips fall where they may. Contrary to some here, a prosecutor is NOT obligated to put every weak case before a grand jury and stack the evidence to get an indictment. It's a no-win. If the prosecutor had just come out and said there wasn't enough evidence for a trial he would have been accused of a cover-up. He calls a Grand Jury to show the evidence to "regular folks" and is accused of being manipulative  by not "loading the box" against the officer. It's twisted logic to me for someone to argue that it would have been better for the grand jury to be ignorant of counter-evidence and that's exactly what they are promoting. I've read up on the various witnesses and the physical evidence. It's pretty clear the officer could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  What I found is that he was guilty of poor judgment. His own account makes it clear he's not the brightest bulb. Why would you, as a cop, try to get out of you car within reach of someone who was a possible belligerent? I think Brown annoyed him. I think Wilson thoughtlessly put himself within reach of Brown and then Brown assaulted him. Wilson, I speculate, put himself in a position of vulnerability which led to massive escalation. So, I'm happy he's not a police officer anymore. He didn't murder Brown but I believe a more competent officer could have avoided what happened. (Similar issues with Tamir Rice - What's with Cops driving cars right up to a suspect like that?)

[Pattern Ghost]

This not about statistics, though. In Utah, with a population of about half that of Denmark, the cops shoot and kill 9-10 civilians a year. In Denmark, twice as many people, the cops shoot and kill about 0-1 people per year. No matter how you slice it, those two things are fundamentally different. And Utah is not even one of the worst states. Now sure - different rules, different cultures. For a start, criminals here rarely have guns, which fundamentally changes the situation. But still, you are looking at a real difference, and one of huge magnitude. It cannot be explained as different methods of assessing data, or similar. Dead is dead. So it's a real difference. The question is, what can or should be done about it?

 

And that depends on you guys. I can guarantee, that here, if we had 18-25 police killings a year (a level equivalent to US states), the police commissioners responsible and the minister of justice would all be looking for new jobs, if not facing charges - unless there were some truly extraordinary extenuating circumstances

 

Cheers, Mark

 

Utah is still an apples to oranges comparison. You simply can't make an apples to apples comparison to the US. That's the problem with the numbers.

 

Also, citing statistics, then saying it's not about statistics, then giving more statistics is . . . confusing.